Because in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.

Instead of supporting the “consensus” science one must believe in (to avoid the “climate denier” label), these 500 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes associated with anthropogenic forcing. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations [NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect in the context of such large natural variability. Papers questioning (and undermining) the “consensus” view on paleoclimate (Medieval) warmth, ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, climate sensitivity to CO2, etc., are included in this collection.

Quote:

Finally, there are 132 papers linking solar activity to weather and climate change (in addition to another ~90 that link natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations [ENSO, NAO, etc.], clouds, volcanic activity . . . to climate change). This is of special note because the IPCC has, since its inception, insisted that solar factors play almost no role in modern climate change. Apparently scientists agree less and less with that “consensus” position.

Dr Finkel, who is conducting a review of the electricity market for the federal government following the statewide blackout in South Australia in September, said people who rented properties or lived in apartments were limited in their ability to install new technologies.

Migrants with limited English, people with poor financial literacy and those struggling to make ends meet were at risk of paying ­increased costs to subsidise households or businesses able to invest in new technologies. Passive or loyal consumers who were not ­engaged in managing their electricity demand and costs were vulnerable too, Dr Finkel added.

The danger was that, as more consumers took greater steps with the aid of technological ­advance­ments to rely less on the grid, the cost of building and maintaining the network would be spread over a smaller number of “vulnerable” users.

The Australian Energy Market Commission has warned that electricity prices are set to surge during the next two years, largely driven by the ­close of coal-fired power stations in South Australia and Victoria and ongoing investment in wind generation.

Australian Stock Exchange data showed yesterday that base future contract prices for March were highest in South Australia, which yesterday had its third major blackout in four months. For companies to buy a megawatt of electricity in March, it would cost South ­Australian buyers almost $152.91, compared with $100 in Queensland, $63.75 in NSW and $54.50 in Victoria.

South Australia, under Labor Premier Jay Weatherill, has a renewable energy generation mix of more than 40 per cent, the highest of any state. The state’s last coal-fired power station closed in May.

Quote:

With a major coal plant closure scheduled in Victoria for March 2017, which up until now has been South Australia’s fossil fuel backup buddy, the situation can only get worse.

Victorian consumers, already suffering the cost of their state government’s multi-billion dollar desalination plant fiasco, are likely in the near future to have to pay for South Australian style energy price rises.

Australia is on negative credit watch with international ratings agencies, because of ballooning public debt levels. Forced energy price rises, and the rapid deterioration of Australia’s baseload generation capacity, is unlikely to impress. The financial shock of a downgrade would hit every level of Australian society.

Well, fence sitters. Don't make a lot of money. How much more are you going to let the Climate Scientologists make you pay?

So his "expertise" in climate change is more in depth that his expertise in politics? You do not understand the impact on his credibility or you just do not care about the truth when it suits your needs?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Because in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.

Instead of supporting the “consensus” science one must believe in (to avoid the “climate denier” label), these 500 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes associated with anthropogenic forcing. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations [NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect in the context of such large natural variability. Papers questioning (and undermining) the “consensus” view on paleoclimate (Medieval) warmth, ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, climate sensitivity to CO2, etc., are included in this collection.

Quote:

Finally, there are 132 papers linking solar activity to weather and climate change (in addition to another ~90 that link natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations [ENSO, NAO, etc.], clouds, volcanic activity . . . to climate change). This is of special note because the IPCC has, since its inception, insisted that solar factors play almost no role in modern climate change. Apparently scientists agree less and less with that “consensus” position.

Where exactly are these papers listed and if this were such a variation from the consensus, why was this not published in a journal with peer review rather than a random blog? Claims without any supporting evidence do not seem to be worth the paper upon which they are not written.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Multi-Millionaires are being handed tens of thousands of pounds a year by the Government to heat their mansions and swimming pools.Wealthy owners of country estates are rewarded for using excessive amounts of heat – as long as it is made using ‘green’ energy.Some are given as much as £50,000 every year in taxpayers’ money so the UK can meet renewable energy targets agreed with the European Union.

Quote:

Rewards increase as the landowners use more heat, so profits can be maximised by turning up the temperature.The House of Schivas estate in Aberdeenshire run by Lord Catto, 66, is under investigation after the Daily Mail found it has been paid thousands in government subsidies to heat its indoor swimming pool 24 hours a day.A reporter was told the water was kept hot at all times, even in summer.

Quote:

ShareIn another case an undercover reporter was advised by a green energy salesman to raise the heat in the pool at a country manor to take advantage of the system.The extraordinary deals mean the wealthy landowners are guaranteed to get the payments for 20 years. Almost £800million has been set aside to cover the payments this year and costs are expected to rise to more than £1billion by 2020. Meanwhile thousands of homeowners across the country struggle to heat their homes and pay their winter bills.Tory MEP Daniel Hannan called the scheme ‘upper class welfarism’. He added: ‘A system like this can be literally corrupting in that it makes an otherwise good person behave badly.’Mark Andrew, the former estate manager of The House of Schivas estate in Aberdeenshire, run by Lord Catto, 66A similar ‘cash for ash’ scandal in Northern Ireland has led to a political crisis there. Homeowners milked profits by turning ‘green’ heating to maximum and opening windows.

Its all about the right people lining their pockets, and its all about the other people under the thumb of government.

Multi-Millionaires are being handed tens of thousands of pounds a year by the Government to heat their mansions and swimming pools.Wealthy owners of country estates are rewarded for using excessive amounts of heat – as long as it is made using ‘green’ energy.Some are given as much as £50,000 every year in taxpayers’ money so the UK can meet renewable energy targets agreed with the European Union.

Quote:

Rewards increase as the landowners use more heat, so profits can be maximised by turning up the temperature.The House of Schivas estate in Aberdeenshire run by Lord Catto, 66, is under investigation after the Daily Mail found it has been paid thousands in government subsidies to heat its indoor swimming pool 24 hours a day.A reporter was told the water was kept hot at all times, even in summer.

Quote:

ShareIn another case an undercover reporter was advised by a green energy salesman to raise the heat in the pool at a country manor to take advantage of the system.The extraordinary deals mean the wealthy landowners are guaranteed to get the payments for 20 years. Almost £800million has been set aside to cover the payments this year and costs are expected to rise to more than £1billion by 2020. Meanwhile thousands of homeowners across the country struggle to heat their homes and pay their winter bills.Tory MEP Daniel Hannan called the scheme ‘upper class welfarism’. He added: ‘A system like this can be literally corrupting in that it makes an otherwise good person behave badly.’Mark Andrew, the former estate manager of The House of Schivas estate in Aberdeenshire, run by Lord Catto, 66A similar ‘cash for ash’ scandal in Northern Ireland has led to a political crisis there. Homeowners milked profits by turning ‘green’ heating to maximum and opening windows.

Its all about the right people lining their pockets, and its all about the other people under the thumb of government.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer model projections are unfailingly wrong. Projections for three scenarios, High, Medium and Low, are consistently high compared to the actual temperature. There is something fundamentally wrong with their work and claims. They should not be the basis of any policy, public or private. The following statement from Assessment Report (AR4) is untenable given the projection results.

Quote:

In one article, I pointed out that the IPCC and key players in the AGW deception knew there was no data.

In 1993, Stephen Schneider, a primary player in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and the use of models went beyond doubt to certainty when he said,

“Uncertainty about important feedback mechanisms is one reason why the ultimate goal of climate modeling – forecasting reliably the future of key variables such as temperature and rainfall patterns – is not realizable.”

A February 3, 1999, US National Research Council Report said,

Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality, and continuity of the records place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.

To which Kevin Trenberth responded,

It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system….This may come as a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.

Two CRU Directors, Tom Wigley, and Phil Jones said,

Many of the uncertainties surrounding the causes of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.

They didn’t hide the fact because it allowed them to produce the data they needed to prove their hypothesis and present the models as representative of the real world. They also knew, as they did with most climate science, the public didn’t know there was inadequate data.

Quote:

Promoters of AGW and members of the IPCC lead the public to believe that they have a vast amount of data to support their analysis and claim that they are 95 percent certain that human CO2 is causing global warming. They also promote the notion that 97 percent of scientists agree with their conclusion. They promote by specific statements, by failing to investigate the accuracy of the data, or failing to speak out when they know it is incorrect.

Most people, probably at least 97 percent, have never read the SPM, including scientists, politicians, and the media. Probably 99 percent of people have never read the Science Report. How many of them would change their minds if they considered the information shown above? Maybe that is too much. Maybe all that is necessary is to learn that every projection the IPCC ever made was wrong.

This brief and limited look at what the IPCC are saying on its own gives credence to Emeritus Professor Hal Lewis’s charge in his October 2010 resignation letter from the American Physical Society

“It (the global warming scam) is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Quote:

It is a pseudoscientific fraud because there was no data as the basis for any of their work. The scientists determined to achieve the objective of the IPCC, that is prove ‘scientifically’ that human CO2 was causing global warming, had to modify or eliminate the inadequate real data and create false data. Even if, under the new regime, the fraud is exposed and proper science and scientific methods are applied it will take a very long time to gather the minimum data required. Until that occurs it is all just hand-waving. However, there is enough evidence to know that the precautionary principle is not applicable. The little evidence we have indicates we are safer to do nothing.

Fence sitters the few snippets I have provided here don't do this justice. Take the time and read through the whole thing. Its a bit long but its well worth the time.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer model projections are unfailingly wrong. Projections for three scenarios, High, Medium and Low, are consistently high compared to the actual temperature. There is something fundamentally wrong with their work and claims. They should not be the basis of any policy, public or private. The following statement from Assessment Report (AR4) is untenable given the projection results.

Quote:

In one article, I pointed out that the IPCC and key players in the AGW deception knew there was no data.

In 1993, Stephen Schneider, a primary player in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and the use of models went beyond doubt to certainty when he said,

“Uncertainty about important feedback mechanisms is one reason why the ultimate goal of climate modeling – forecasting reliably the future of key variables such as temperature and rainfall patterns – is not realizable.”

A February 3, 1999, US National Research Council Report said,

Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality, and continuity of the records place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.

To which Kevin Trenberth responded,

It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system….This may come as a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.

Two CRU Directors, Tom Wigley, and Phil Jones said,

Many of the uncertainties surrounding the causes of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.

They didn’t hide the fact because it allowed them to produce the data they needed to prove their hypothesis and present the models as representative of the real world. They also knew, as they did with most climate science, the public didn’t know there was inadequate data.

Quote:

Promoters of AGW and members of the IPCC lead the public to believe that they have a vast amount of data to support their analysis and claim that they are 95 percent certain that human CO2 is causing global warming. They also promote the notion that 97 percent of scientists agree with their conclusion. They promote by specific statements, by failing to investigate the accuracy of the data, or failing to speak out when they know it is incorrect.

Most people, probably at least 97 percent, have never read the SPM, including scientists, politicians, and the media. Probably 99 percent of people have never read the Science Report. How many of them would change their minds if they considered the information shown above? Maybe that is too much. Maybe all that is necessary is to learn that every projection the IPCC ever made was wrong.

This brief and limited look at what the IPCC are saying on its own gives credence to Emeritus Professor Hal Lewis’s charge in his October 2010 resignation letter from the American Physical Society

“It (the global warming scam) is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Quote:

It is a pseudoscientific fraud because there was no data as the basis for any of their work. The scientists determined to achieve the objective of the IPCC, that is prove ‘scientifically’ that human CO2 was causing global warming, had to modify or eliminate the inadequate real data and create false data. Even if, under the new regime, the fraud is exposed and proper science and scientific methods are applied it will take a very long time to gather the minimum data required. Until that occurs it is all just hand-waving. However, there is enough evidence to know that the precautionary principle is not applicable. The little evidence we have indicates we are safer to do nothing.

Fence sitters the few snippets I have provided here don't do this justice. Take the time and read through the whole thing. Its a bit long but its well worth the time.

The guest blogger beating his own drum and claiming all of the science is wrong except his view ..... because he cannot put together enough evidence to get published in a real journal on the subject.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

There’s nothing equivocal about these statements. When scientists produce a document that says one thing, but their findings get massaged and manipulated by the people upstairs, scientific integrity has been violated. That is the clear position of the US government.